Schumer: Hillary Wins When Voters Get 'Serious'
“This is a serious election,” said Chuck Schumer on a conference call about Hillary Clinton’s campaign this morning. He added that voters choose Clinton when they “get close to decision-making time, when they know this is for real."
Schumer spoke after Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who said that Hillary had started to win now that “people have gotten through the initial job interviews.”
Bayh contested any notion that Clinton should drop out of the race for the good of the party. “We’ve got six and a half million people in my state—I think they deserve to be heard,” he said, noting that Indiana is a “working-class Midwestern state.”
"Hillary is a fighter," Schumer told reporters who were listening in.
“She’s had everything against her, but she is indomitable,” he added, and “she gets stronger when she is up against the wall.”
“She works and she works and she works,” he continued. “I saw this in New York when she first announced for the Senate."
And before jumping off the call, he said, “I like your haircut, Phil—it’s very nice.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
If voters are truly serious, we'll boot Schumer out of office for his UNPARDONABLE support of Attorney General / Waterboarding fan / Bushist Gruppenfuhrer Michael B. Mukasey.
He had our complete support and he frittered it away on this unacceptable favor to the Bush administration.
Chuck Schumer -- the guy who gave us AG Mukasey, and Mr. "Cave" on warrantless surveillance and and telecom amnesty. If he's "serious," I'm the king of Siam.
So now we get a gloating Hillary, who was able to hang on to half her lead in Ohio and a quarter of it in Texas by using Bush-Rove fear & smear tactics (red-phone ad, please! What’s next…a wolf pack?). We’re stuck with her for at least the next seven weeks, as she aligns herself with McCain to denigrate Obama, not only handing McCain the ammo he needs to beat her (foreign policy experience? Senate experience? If longevity in those areas counts, who wins…Hillary or John?). We also get to spend 80-100 million between now and June that could be spent campaigning against McCain. One pundit said last night that the republicans now get to sit back and watch the Democrats “die the death of a thousand cuts.”
Another point…Hillary is crowing today about how she has shown she can win the big states. OK, in a primary, she did…she won her victories by capturing the registered democrats. How does that say she could deliver Ohio or Texas in a general election? It’s unlikely that the registered Democrats in those states will go for McCain; the people we need in those states are the young people, the independents and crossover republicans. Obama has been delivering those, and has increased the African-American turnout in every state to much larger than historical levels.
Let’s talk for a minute about the experience myth. Experience can be a valuable teacher, but learning is not an inevitable consequence of experience. Some people learn nothing from experience, some people learn the wrong things. Some people have twenty years of experience, and some have one year of experience that they then repeat nineteen times. It’s much more important to understand what someone has learned from experience…how has it informed their judgment; have they grown from the experience, shrunk from it, stubbornly rejected it and stayed the same? Longevity doesn’t equal learning.
So merely having experience doesn’t help. As George Will pointed out last week, our most experienced presidential candidate (Buchanan) turned out to be arguably the worst presidents…and his one term ended when he was replaced by one of our least experienced candidates who became arguably one of our greatest presidents. Lincoln had very little to recommend him in terms of government experience, but people recognized his intelligence and leadership potential via his charisma and, yes, his eloquence.
The other side of the experience argument: Let’s pretend, for a minute, that experience WAS a reliable predictor of performance as president. Hillary touts “35 years of experience.” Everything she’s done since graduation from law school counts? She was married to a president, it’s true…she knows her way around the White House, and she was influential when she was there (not influential enough to get much done, but she managed to gain a lot of headlines and be really strident and divisive…great experience). Then she was a Senator. If you actually look at her record in the congressional record, it’s OK. She has done some things. She’s put in a lot of bills. Many of her bills have no co-sponsors. Obama’s bills tend to have more co-sponsors, and in the last year or so, more of his have become law. In addition, he got quite a bit done in Illinois. In terms of pure legislative experience, a glance at their records will reveal that Obama actually has more legislative experience than Hillary; a deeper study will reveal that he has grown more and been more successful with legislation.
Hillary and her supporters continue to discount Obama’s speaking ability and charisma. How times have changed! Bill said in 2004 that if you have two candidates and one is telling you to have hope and the other one is appealing to your fears, you better pick the one that’s telling you to hope.
What gets missed in this argument is leadership. This country is going to need someone who can appeal to the broadest possible audience, build the broadest possible coalition and get things passed with 60-65% majorities. That’s how major change happens. Another 4 years of partisan bickering and gridlock can only hurt. We are going to need a charismatic and eloquent leader who can bring us the unpleasant truth, provide a vision for a brighter future and rally us to do something about it. We are also going to need experienced managers, but they should be working for that charismatic leader. Hillary has already publicly recognized that she’s not charismatic or eloquent; she should not be that leader.
If the Democratic Party Leadership does not take the strategic view here, they are going to continue their record of snatching defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. Hillary won’t do the right thing…she has amply demonstrated over the last week that all she cares about is Hillary, and Hillary winning. The party needs to take control, or they will surely lose the White House in November.
— Posted by Rip Stauffer
NYT.com excelleng blog post response!
watching the democrat party careen off the road into the proverbial ditch is rather distressing. I am actually beginning to understand why this party has been so ineffective for so long. Why does the party seem to believe that this is their election to loose? And why is the leadership (what leadership??!!) willing to watch 2 candidates take each other apart to arrive at a weaker conclusion for the party as a whole? I see no reason why HRC has to drop out of the this primary, but I do think that the style of her campaign is obviously destructive to party interests. Now this is all obvious, but what I dont understand is why no one is stopping it? And if the party leadership cannot handle this situation in an assertive manner, one can understand why it has been highly ineffective in legislation for the last 8 years despite an unpopular president. Furthermore I see little reason to suddenly believe that they will be able to get their act together once in power. Watching this primary degenerate into the mess it is becoming is extremely frustrating and a lesson in futility.
My my! You Obamabots are a tad peckish today. Could it be that your candidate is showing that he is not unlike other politicians and has flaws and blemishes just like ever other? Take heart, though. I'm sure your not the first to wake up feeling used and abused by a sweet talking snake oil salesman and turned your embarassment into rage. It will pass. As for HRC, she is just beginning to turn it up a notch. She is drawing sharp contrasts between she and the golden tongued senator from Illinois. Obama has proven that he cannot answer eight questions in a row without scurrying out of the room. He is going to have to man up if he is to make a decent candidate let alone a strong president.
Hillary will say and do ANYTHING to get the nomination. If she is selected as the nominee, she will surely lose the general election (because, let's face it, if ANYONE can screw up an election, it is the Democratic Party.) We will be stuck with McCain.
Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq, but didn't bother to support the Levin amendment. She supported the Patriot Act (maybe she didn't read it.)
So this is the time for Dems to stand up now for Hillary Clinton. She has done now what she said she would do, by winning the states she said she would. Dems can not afford to send the glass jaw of Mr Obama to face the Republicans, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Hope for
Change comes from faith in the person you put it in, regardless of the bitter comments I'm sure this will recieve, most real Dems (not those pretending to be) know that HRC will fight for the things she talks about in her speeches, rather than the 8 years we've had of Bush and empty phrases from Mr Obama. Unite now and send HRC to the White House.
Ferd Pilzwick
I'm so tired of hearing the standard Obama stump line of Hillary supported the war. 80% of the country supported the war when we invaded Iraq, so odds are better than not you too supported the war when we invaded. It's the future of America I'm worried about and Mr. Obama's and his supporters obsession with the past about a war that was approved by congress, the senate, and the American people in a majority, seems like a tactic rather than a solution.
Umm, Byron? Are you really arguing that Hillary would be a better president than Obama because she was foolish enough to buy the same hype as other people? Since when is a mob-mentality justification for ignorance?
While the vote to authorize the war is in the past, the consequences are a very real part of the current state the union. Why on God's green earth wouldn't a candidate for president, along with his/her supporters, be "obsessed" with a war that was a mistake from the beginning and has cost this country thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and the respect of an entire planet? The war, and Sen. Clinton's vote on it, is not a "tactic", it is the truth.
Old Chuckie Schumer...evil spawn of card carrying communist parents. Scourge of Brooklyn. You guys don't like him because he rubber stamped the AG? Idiots. Waterboarding is gonna continue no matter who gets elected next year. If by some chance it stops, it's because the US outsources it to Pakistan or some other sh*t hole.
Chuckie didn't belong in the House, let alone the Senate. The only voters more stupid than New Yorkers are Vermonters. How are you going to elect Schumer over D'Amato?? Suckers.
Byron, are you serious? You are tired about hearing someone remind the public that there is a choice between a candidate who repeatedly exercised sound judgment on matters of foreign policy versus one who routinely showed poor judgment? It isn't just THAT he got it right and she got it wrong (though that ought to be worth a lot to someone worried about the future), it is HOW he got it right, and HOW she got it wrong.
Obama had ambitions for national office and was about to embark on a statewide campaign, but refused to bow to pressure and voiced opposition to a war that even you say was supported by 4 of 5 people. Then, he explained WHY he opposed it, saying what removing Sadddam would mean in terms of Iraqi and regional stability and the long term distraction this would be from the fight in Afghanistan.
Contrast that to Hillary, who decided that she knew enough about the subject to reject the suggestion by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committe to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (a man who based his own opposition to the war on the information in that NIE).
She voted to send troops into a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 without reading the intelligence report. Do you get that? That's called gross negligence, and in a corporate environment it would be grounds for termination; not a promotion....
It isn't about the past (though her past actions disqualify her in my mind), it is about how these people are likely to act in the future. EVERYTHING about Hillary's past would lead this voter to conclude that she will exercise the same poor judgment on foreign policy going forward as she has in the past. Her embrace of Bush's Iran resolution and Bush's stance towards talking to "enemies" is all the more reason to think she would not represent change on foreign policy matters.
Use your head, dude, it isn't just about the past....
Learning from experience:
Clinton’s idea of leadership is very different. Her effort to reform health care shortly after her husband took office was notable in that no one mobilized the public. Her team took polls, conducted focus groups, and engaged interest groups. But they never mobilized the public. And although an outsider at the time, she tried to play the insider game. But in the insider’s game, only the insider’s reality counts. So she lost – and so did the millions of us who never had an opportunity to help make the health care “changes” we needed and wanted and deserved.
Now Clinton wants us to hear what she will do “for” us, what “she” will deliver – much as a lawyer, drawing strength not from her client but from her expertise, argues a case. Obama, on the other hand, urges people to join with him in acting for themselves and each other. A former community organizer, he learned that changing ourselves and changing the world go together, and that without mobilizing the strength of people who want change, it won’t happen.
America doesn’t just need “change”—it needs the kind of change that mobilizes those who want and need it, rather than relying on those who resist and fear it. Clinton made her key mistakes on health care in 1994; fourteen years later, what the imbroglio about Martin Luther King and LBJ shows is not racial insensitivity but that she’s never learned the real lesson about how to make change that matters and lasts.
http://tpmcafe.com/2008/01/21/clinton_obama_mlk_leadership_f/#more
Judge them by the company they keep:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=2&scp=2...
And this is what the clinton's longtime family friend did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo&feature=related
Does anyone see the similarity in GW's preparation for the Iraq war and HRC's preparation for this campaign. I'll try and point out the similarities:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
The list can go on and on
Schumer has to have another centrist democrat so the pool party can continue. Heaven forbid we have real government where Congress actually exercises it's oversite powers. Thanks for the AG bucko! The circus in Washington can continue.
Actually Schumer what I'd like to say is f-you.
The way people like Schumer and other Clinton supporters keep using GOP TALKING POINTS is exactly why many people refuse to vote for her.
Schumer, I wish you had gotten serious when you voted for Mukasey and John Roberts. Your judgement doesn't mean a damn thing after those fiascos. Just like the Rpublicans, you expect to be considered "serious" no matter how many times you are wrong.
Excellent post, Rip. I agree on every point; and you didn't even get into all the crap they already have on Hillary that Obama has not used in his campaign because of trying to avoid "the politics of personal destruction" and maintaining Democratic unity.
It's time for HRC to start begging for a VP slot. Otherwise she'll be that "woman who first ran for president, but lost the election."
We have much about which to be ashamed in New York: 2 war supporting Democratic Senators. 2 Democratic Senators who have been enablers of so much of what Bush and Dick have been doing against this country. The Empire State Senators have been big wheels in driving the American Empire.
Funny how the media is trying to make the connection of how negative press toward Mr. Obama could have made an impact in the elections on March 4th, but still fail to go further to the connection of how they've affected the perception of Hillary and her campaign over the last 3 months with a constant barrage of negative media toward her.
What is equally as strange is how now it is accepted/encouraged by the media and seems to be the strategy when Mr. Obama goes negative in his campaign, which the Obama campaign, their supporters, and the media have been very critical of Hillary for supposedly doing.
The double standard still exist
If you all hate our two senators so much, how come they keep getting re-elected???? I've been voting against these two wastrels for the last ten years, but to no avail. Don't be so G*d damn dogmatic and vote straight Democratic at every election; try voting Republican or Independent once in a while.
Ron X -- you got that right. I vote Socialist Workers for Senator every damn time.
Both Mr. Obama and his supports feel he should be immune from criticism. While I am no Schummer fan, I have to say I have to agree with him on Hillary.
As to Mr. Obama arguing that we should look at Hillary's claims of experience, I think the media has been all over Hillary for years. It is now time for Mr. Obama to show what his experience is.
As for claims that Hillary's experience is being married to Bill Clinton, I say where have you been for all these years. You could poo, poo her White House years if she were a bimbette--just folding dollies and overseeing dinners during that time but she has always been involved in policy issues from day one and has not been afraid of confrontation and has rolled with the punches. I don't agree with her on all the issues and sometimes she infruiates me but I know she is a fighter and that is what we need.
I am not interested in someone who belives he is "above the fray" and is immune. I want someone who knows how to do what needs to be done. I love being inspired but inspiration needs to be translated in into action.
As to the republican play book Mr. Obama has been using that against Hillary since day one.
@revjmike:
"It's time for HRC to start begging for a VP slot."
She is. From McCain.
@Anonynmous@March 06, 2008 12:30 PM:
"As to the republican play book Mr. Obama has been using that against Hillary since day one."
Facts, please...
Five more supers for BHO!! Go Barry, Go!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHUCK IS WRONG --- HILLARY STARTS WINNING WHEN SHE PUSHES HER DIRTY TRICKS AGENDA. IT NOW HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT IT WAS THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA PEOPLE, WHO PHONED THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AND SAID "DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT NAFTA, I DON'T REALLY MEAN IT." CHUCK IS A LAPDOG WHO WILL SUPPORT HILLARY NO MATTER IF IT DESTROYS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obama's legislation in Illinois:
Illinois State Senate 1996 - 2004
* Welfare legislation
* Created the Earned Income Tax Credit program that gave over $100 million in tax cuts for families throughout Illinois over 3 years.
* Expanded early childhood education
* Enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
* He passed a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. The law was at first very controversial, but due to Obama's skills as a negotiator and bipartisanships, he won the support of the police. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.
* Pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Worked with U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL), 1988. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
* Created a working, affordable health care plan in Illinois, that covers 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults, where all kids qualify for $40 per child. Obama sponsored and passed this legislation, working with Rod R. Blagojevich(IL Gov.) See All Kids http://www.allkids.com/ . It is a model for a workable, affordable national health care.
Obama's legislation passed in US Senate
* Lugar-Obama Act to decrease nuclear and conventional weapons proliferation around the world.
* Coburn-Obama Transparency Act transparency in federal spending, found at httP://www.usaspending.gov
* Cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
* Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
* As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries
* Congo: Obama and Leahy successfully passed an amendment to provide $13 million in assistance to the DRC for military reform and election assistance. The bill also provided the the US policy is to oppose and fight against the rape and killings of women that is a particular horror there. Obama has recently sent a letter to Sec. Rice demanding a report of their efforts there.
* Darfur
* Introduced Patriot Employer Act, August 2007, to reward companies for keeping jobs in the US
* As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,10.
* Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.
* Obama sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
* Congressional ethics legislation, called the Gold Standard of ethics reform, passed by Obama and Feingold that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.”
* Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
Schumer deserves respect for the wonderful things he has done for the people of New York, especially during 9/11.
But, here he is spinning for Hillary. Hillary won in the Texas primary because Rush Libaughs voters moved to keep her in the race. Without them, she would have lost the primary. She lost the caucus by such a wide margin that Obama actually won Texas.
With regard to the initial interviews, we're just getting started at looking at the candidates. The press has yet to compare their legislation, and Obama wins that hands down. Neither has the press brought out many Hillary issues that are yet unvetted, such as the Rich pardons for money, or Bills support for the Kazhakstan dictator that resulted in $51 million, and a pledge for $100 million more. He is right, the interview is just beginning.
Hillary is a fighter, I would agree. But, at this point in time, we need someone who knows how not to fight. We need someone who can heal deep wounds. We need someone who can pull many people together to pass amazing legislation. Obama has shown that he does that. Hillary has show that she does not.
I'm stunned than Shumer would say Hillary's had everything against her. It really discredits everything else he says. Hillary started with percentages in the 70s. She had the biggest war chest, the most name recognition, a war machine built over 20 years in place. It was her election to loose. Obama started from scratch. She's had nothing thrown at her but Obama's good graces, and she can't stand up to that. Neither is she indomitable. The numbers, at this point, say it's not likely that she will win, even with the superdelegates.
But, she is a fighter. Even when the numbers say she's lost, she still wastes the countries money and time. Yes, she is working hard. She always had, to her credit. But, unlike the Senate where Giuliani dropped out for her first election, and her second election gave her an underfunded opponent, both McCain and Obama are serious adversaries.
She's had to fight hard, and she's shown her true colors. She can rattle off the policy points better than anyone. But, Obama gives us a vision. For example, in the second to last debate, when they discussed immigration laws, Hillary listed her points adroitly. Obama agreed, and then continued to say that it was important to help the Spanish speaking kids in school so they don't fall behind, and that in this global community, we will need to be more aware of other countries, and it might be good for us to start learning other languages. Obama understood not only the policy issues, but how the big picture influenced the lives of people.
Hillary might have made a good president, but Obama gives us an opportunity for so much more. We should take it.
Yes, it is tired his constant reminding of HIllary's vote. If anyone is really interested in getting the full view of these candidates, go to the United States Senate website and view every vote Obama has ever cast as a US Senator - Hillary has voted the same he has - about fund appropriation for the military, redeployment, security of our southern borders. And when they have differed in their votes, Hillary's votes have always been the more liberral - don't believe it? See for yourself...
Barack Obama has the great advantage of not having been a US Senator when the Iraq resolution came to vote. Unlike Senator Clinton, he did not represent a constituency that had been devastated by 9/11 (I know, the whole country was affected but, really, it was New York and the Pentagon that got decimated)and was faced with a losing offensive in Afghanistan. Hillary fought and grovelled to get a mere pittance of what the state was owed in HOmeland Security dollars. Do you really believe that this administration was going to part with this money if she voted against the resolution? Plus, as we all know, the resolution allowed an inquest to begin on the actions of Iraq and the Bush administration abused that with lies and strong-arming (witness the duping of Colin POwell.)It was not a vote to go to war. If Barack is so enraged by Mrs. Clinton's vote, how can he accept the support of like-minded war voters such as Kerry and Dodd? Don't be fooled by the smooth oration, folks. Obama is a politician, first and foremost. Any comparison to a civil rights leader is misguided and insulting. Barack has one mission and that is to catapult himself to to the head of the pack.